(08-30-2016, 01:18 AM)120inna55 Wrote: I haven't tried a Latha soap. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a douche, but it seems like it's spun towards beginners and that it's inferior to the other B&M's. I don't mean to have that attitude, but once I've tried the top-shelf B&M soaps, I really can't be pleased with any soap that doesn't perform as well. It's why I still regard B&M's Glissant as my benchmark. That doesn't mean there aren't other soaps that approach or match Glissant's performance.
Would it be fair to say the Latha line performs like B&M's non-Glissant base? I have many of those that I enjoy, but I'll still be replacing them as the Glissant versions are phased in.
I guess what I'm looking for is someone to convince me I'm being unreasonable by dismissing the Latha line. If you can do that, I'll be freed up to order the Figgy Pudding when it comes out.
(08-30-2016, 01:19 AM)120inna55 Wrote: (08-30-2016, 01:07 AM)andrewjs18 Wrote: As far as I know roam is made every year. Will can confirm...
To the dismay of many, no, it is not. There's been some suggestion that if may make the rounds every few years, though.
(08-30-2016, 01:32 AM)Hobbyist Wrote: (08-30-2016, 01:18 AM)120inna55 Wrote: I haven't tried a Latha soap. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a douche, but it seems like it's spun towards beginners and that it's inferior to the other B&M's. I don't mean to have that attitude, but once I've tried the top-shelf B&M soaps, I really can't be pleased with any soap that doesn't perform as well. It's why I still regard B&M's Glissant as my benchmark. That doesn't mean there aren't other soaps that approach or match Glissant's performance.
Would it be fair to say the Latha line performs like B&M's non-Glissant base? I have many of those that I enjoy, but I'll still be replacing them as the Glissant versions are phased in.
I guess what I'm looking for is someone to convince me I'm being unreasonable by dismissing the Latha line. If you can do that, I'll be freed up to order the Figgy Pudding when it comes out.
I used to think the same thing, why buy the lesser line when I have so many of the top line. Well, that is not the case anymore. If B&M offered the same scents in Latha I would probably only use Latha. I am very impressed with the quality of it in all regards. Honestly, I can't say Glissant is better. Even the post shave of Latha is excellent. The slickness is there too, as is the cushion, and plenty of it. Also, I find that I am getting more shaves out of Latha than both White Label old formula and Glissant. All are excellent formulas that I could use every day and not complain.
(08-30-2016, 03:55 AM)milesd Wrote: Since everyone has so far only addressed the differences between the soap lines, I'd like to ask opinions on the differences between the aftershaves in the Latha and non-Latha lines. The points already made about the scent profiles applies here too, but how about other attributes? I've only tried the Lavanille so far, so I can't speak to any of this myself. But I am curious what everyone else thinks.
One thing that did stand out to me are differences in the ingredients lists. The Latha aftershaves seem to have quite a few more ingredients listed that I wouldn't know without looking them up. That's compared to the more expensive line. (This isn't a criticism, as I find Barrister and Mann products to have much better ingredients than most cosmetic/shave/scent makers) So while this may be an uneducated opinion (which is why I am here - to learn), I have to admit that the simplicity of the ingredients list for products like Lavanille is both impressive and reassuring to me. I have sensitive skin, and allergies, and auto-immune related health issues, so I tend to try to keep anything I put on my skin as simple as possible, especially since I am not a biochemist and can never know the extent to which various ingredients may interact with my own screwed-up health.
But with that aside, it seems to me that the more high-end line of aftershaves such as Lavanille, and Hallows, etc. have a more simple general formulation with the complexity coming down to the scent ingredients alone. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Either way, I'd be happy to try/own anything B&M makes. But the higher end stuff does speak to me more personally from an aesthetics standpoint - not performance related.
Well, "short ingredient lists" often translate to "limited ingredient lists."
Let me illustrate.
Here is the ingredient list for Barrister's Reserve Classic:
Witch Hazel Water (Hamamelis Virginiana), SD Alcohol 40-B (Alcohol Denatured), Water (Aqua), Organic Licorice Root Extract (Glycyrrhiza Glabra), Glycerin, Taurine, Phenoxyethanol, Chlorella (Chlorella Vulgaris)/White Lupin Protein Ferment (Lupinus Albus), Eleuthero Root Extract (Acanthopanax Senticosus), Organic Alcohol, Fragrance, Salicylic Acid, Allantoin, Organic Aloe Leaf Extract (Aloe Barbadensis), German Chamomile Flower Extract (Matricaria Recutita), Provitamin B5 (Panthenol), Sodium Lactate, Benzoic Acid, Benzyl Salicylate, Linalool, D-Limonene, Citronellol, Geraniol, Coumarin, Cinnamic Alcohol, Benzyl Alcohol, Hydroxycitronellal, Eugenol, Methyl 2-Octynoate, Hexyl Cinnamic Aldehyde, Evernia prunastri (Oakmoss) Extract, Citral
Reserve is, without question, the most effective, high-end, and expensive aftershave we manufacture. It took two years to develop, and most of that time was spent working on the base itself (though the fragrances and the technology used to revive them have their own story). Every single component has been selected for a specific reason. For instance:
1) Witch hazel, licorice, allantoin, aloe, and chamomile are part of a proprietary complex that I designed that soothes razorburn and addresses soreness, burning, itching, and stinging. Additionally, allantoin is a keratolytic (skin softener), and the method we used to incorporate it into the product allowed us to saturate the solution entirely, giving it the velvety feel for which the product is already becoming known.
2) Chlorella (white lupin), taurine, and eleuthero (balloon flower) are all part of a botanical complex that causes micro-cuts that result from shaving to regenerate more quickly. Panthenol also contributes to this, but it has another, more primary purpose.
3) Panthenol, licorice, and chamomile serve to reduce redness and inflammation that result from dragging a sharpened piece of metal over your skin.
4) Panthenol (it's a multi-purpose ingredient), sodium lactate, allantoin, and glycerin serve to moisturize the skin and prevent it from drying out, a common complaint with most alcoholic aftershaves.
I could go into the fragrance ingredients as well, if you like, but the point here is that it's not necessarily the length of the list that makes for a good or bad aftershave; it's the skill and dedication of the formulator that produces superior work. Don't necessarily be afraid of long ingredient lists simply because they're long. Educate yourself about what you're putting on your skin, and be afraid of ingredient lists that are full of garbage.
Additionally, one thing I want to note: there's a common practice in the cosmetics/skincare industry called "fairydusting." Basically, you incorporate some special sounding ingredient or botanical at an absurdly low level, where it does absolutely nothing, just so you can put it on the label and charge more money. I abhor fairydusting and consider it tantamount to fraud. Half the junk you see in the so-called "high end" skincare is just nonsense. While there are definitely some ingredients that are highly effective at very low concentration (the compound maslinic acid is legendary for being tremendously powerful at concentrations of .1% or below), generally, if it comes in halfway down the list or below, it's probably there just to make you think you're getting your money's worth.